Purdue University Reactor, 74822-74828 [2016-25993]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
74822
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
removing the requirement for a licensed
senior operator to approve the
suspension of security measures in an
emergency or during severe weather, to
allow suspension of security measures
to be authorized by a CFH, does not
adversely affect public health and safety
issues or the assurance of the common
defense and security.
C. Is Otherwise in the Public Interest
Entergy’s proposed exemption would
allow a CFH, following permanent
cessation of operation and permanent
removal of fuel from the reactor vessel,
to approve suspension of security
measures in an emergency when
‘‘immediately needed to protect the
public health and safety’’ or during
severe weather when ‘‘immediately
needed to protect the personal health
and safety of security force personnel.’’
Without the exemption, the licensee
cannot implement changes to its
security plan to authorize a CFH to
approve the temporary suspension of
security regulations during an
emergency or severe weather,
comparable to the authority given to the
CFH by the NRC when it published
§ 50.54(y). Instead, the regulations
would continue to require that a
licensed senior operator be available to
make decisions for a permanently
shutdown plant, even though JAF
would no longer require a licensed
senior operator. However, it is unclear
how the licensee would implement
emergency or severe weather
suspensions of security measures
without a licensed senior operator. This
exemption is in the public interest for
two reasons. First, without the
exemption, there is uncertainty on how
the licensee will invoke temporary
suspension of security matters that may
be needed for protecting public health
and safety or the safety of the security
force during emergencies and severe
weather. The exemption would allow
the licensee to make decisions pursuant
to § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) without
having to maintain a staff of licensed
senior operators. The exemption would
also allow the licensee to have an
established procedure in place to allow
a trained CFH to suspend security
measures in the event of an emergency
or severe weather. Second, the
consistent and efficient regulation of
nuclear power plants serves the public
interest. This exemption would assure
consistency between the security
regulations in 10 CFR part 73 and the
operating reactor regulations in 10 CFR
part 50, and the requirements
concerning licensed operators in 10 CFR
part 55. The NRC staff has determined
that granting the licensee’s proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
exemption would allow the licensee to
designate an alternative position, with
qualifications appropriate for a
permanently shutdown and defueled
reactor, to approve the suspension of
security measures during an emergency
to protect the public health and safety,
and during severe weather to protect the
safety of the security force, consistent
with the similar authority provided by
§ 50.54(y). Therefore, the exemption is
in the public interest.
D. Environmental Considerations
The NRC’s approval of the exemption
to security requirements belongs to a
category of actions that the Commission,
by rule or regulation, has declared to be
a categorical exclusion, after first
finding that the category of actions does
not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. Specifically, the
exemption is categorically excluded
from further analysis under
§ 51.22(c)(25).
Under § 51.22(c)(25), the granting of
an exemption from the requirements of
any regulation of Chapter I to 10 CFR is
a categorical exclusion provided that: (i)
There is no significant hazards
consideration; (ii) there is no significant
change in the types or significant
increase in the amounts of any effluents
that may be released offsite; (iii) there is
no significant increase in individual or
cumulative public or occupational
radiation exposure; (iv) there is no
significant construction impact; (v)
there is no significant increase in the
potential for or consequences from
radiological accidents; and (vi) the
requirements from which an exemption
is sought involve: Safeguard plans, and
materials control and accounting
inventory scheduling requirements; or
involve other requirements of an
administrative, managerial, or
organizational nature.
The Director, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, has determined that
approval of the exemption request
involves no significant hazards
consideration because expanding the
requirement to allow a CFH to approve
the security suspension at a defueled
shutdown power plant does not (1)
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The exempted security
regulation is unrelated to any
operational restriction. Accordingly,
there is no significant change in the
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
types or significant increase in the
amounts of any effluents that may be
released offsite; and no significant
increase in individual or cumulative
public or occupational radiation
exposure. The exempted regulation is
not associated with construction, so
there is no significant construction
impact. The exempted regulation does
not concern the source term (i.e.,
potential amount of radiation in an
accident), nor mitigation. Thus, there is
no significant increase in the potential
for, or consequences of, a radiological
accident. The requirement to have a
licensed senior operator approve
departure from security actions may be
viewed as involving either safeguards,
materials control, or managerial matters.
Therefore, pursuant to § 51.22(b) and
(c)(25), no environmental impact
statement or environmental assessment
need be prepared in connection with the
approval of this exemption request.
IV. Conclusions
Accordingly, the Commission has
determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
73.5, the exemption is authorized by
law and will not endanger life or
property or the common defense and
security, and is otherwise in the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission
hereby grants the licensee’s request for
an exemption from the requirements of
10 CFR 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii), which
otherwise would require suspension of
security measures during emergencies
and severe weather, respectively, to be
approved by a licensed senior operator
following permanent cessation of
operations and permanent removal of
fuel from the reactor vessel. The
exemption is effective upon the
docketing of the certification of
permanent removal of fuel in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day
of October 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016–25989 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–182; NRC–2011–0186]
Purdue University Reactor
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM
27OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Notices
Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
ACTION:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
renewal of Facility Operating License
No. R–87, held by Purdue University
(the applicant), for the continued
operation of the Purdue University
Reactor (PUR–1), located in West
Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, Indiana
for an additional 20 years. In connection
with the renewed license, the applicant
is also seeking a power increase from 1
kilowatt thermal (kW(t)) to a licensed
power level of 12 kW(t). The NRC is
issuing an environmental assessment
(EA) and finding of no significant
impact (FONSI) associated with the
renewal of the license.
DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in
this document is available on October
27, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2011–0186 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2011–0186. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the
convenience of the reader, the ADAMS
accession numbers are provided in a
table in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’
section of this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy K. Montgomery, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
3398; email: Cindy.Montgomery@
nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is considering issuance of a
renewed Facility Operating License No.
R–87, held by Purdue University, which
would authorize continued operation of
PUR–1, located in West Lafayette,
Tippecanoe County, Indiana, for an
additional 20 years. In connection with
the renewed license, the applicant is
also seeking a power increase from 1
kW(t) to 12 kW(t). As required by
section 51.21 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Criteria
for and identification of licensing and
regulatory actions requiring
environmental assessments,’’ the NRC
performed an EA. Based on the results
of the EA that follows, the NRC has
determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action and is issuing a FONSI.
II. Environmental Assessment
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew
Facility Operating License No. R–87 for
a period of 20 years from the date of
issuance of the renewed license. The
proposed action would also authorize a
power increase from 1 kW(t) to 12
kW(t). The proposed action is in
accordance with Purdue University’s
application dated July 7, 2008, as
supplemented by letters dated June 30,
2008; June 3, and June 4, 2010;
November 15, 2011; January 4, January
30, January 31, June 1, June 15, June 29,
July 13, and August 11, 2012; April 10,
2013; July 24, 2015; and January 29,
February 26, March 31, May 9, July 7,
July 19, September 19, and September
29, 2016 (collectively referred to as ‘‘the
renewal application’’). In accordance
with § 2.109, ‘‘Effect of timely renewal
application,’’ the existing license
remains in effect until the NRC takes
final action on the renewal application.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
allow the continued operation of the
PUR–1, which is used for teaching and
research to support the mission of
Purdue University, for a period of 20
years. Operation of the PUR–1 at the
requested higher power level would
expand the educational and research
uses of the facility.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
Separate from the environmental
assessment referenced in this document,
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
74823
the NRC is writing a safety evaluation
(SE) of the proposed action to issue
renewed Facility Operating License No.
R–87 to allow continued operation of
the PUR–1 for a period of 20 years. The
details of the NRC’s SE will be provided
with the renewed license, if approved.
This document contains the EA of the
proposed action.
The applicant has requested a power
increase from 1 kW(t) to 12 kW(t)
maximum allowed licensed power. The
applicant performed analyses at 18
kW(t) to bound the requested power
increase. The applicant’s required
annual reports from 2011 through 2015
indicate that no measurable amount of
radioactive effluent was released from
the PUR–1 to the environment.
Facility Site and Environs
The PUR–1 is a heterogeneous, pooltype non-power reactor that has been in
operation since 1962 for teaching and
research purposes. The PUR–1 is
located in the Duncan Annex of the
Electrical Engineering Building on the
eastern edge of the Purdue University
campus. The building was originally
designed as a high voltage laboratory,
and the space was later converted into
classrooms, laboratories, and offices.
The building is constructed of brick,
concrete block, and reinforced concrete.
Within the Duncan Annex, the PUR–1 is
located within a 6,400-gallon cylindrical
water tank that is 17 feet deep and 8 feet
in diameter. The tank is enclosed by a
concrete shielding structure.
The PUR–1 operates about 90 times
per year on average. The reactor is
fueled with standard low-enriched
uranium plate-type fuel and is cooled by
natural convection of light water. The
reactor coolant system includes a
process system, which controls the pool
water temperature, and a purification
system, which is designed to maintain
pool water quality by limiting corrosion
and coolant activation by the use of
microfilters and ion exchange resins.
Water from the pool is drawn out from
the scupper drain or suction line via
polyvinyl chloride piping leading to the
circulating pump; a second source of
water for the pump is a water supply
tank supplied with city service water
and controlled by a float valve. Ball
valves for water shutoff and a vacuum
cleaning connection are provided in the
pump supply line. From the pump, a
pipe with a ball valve installed leads
first to the filter and then to a
demineralizer. An adjustable by-pass or
throttling valve is inserted in the system
to regulate water flow through the
demineralizer. A flow indicator and a
conductivity indicator are installed as a
check on flow rate and water purity
E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM
27OCN1
74824
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Notices
from the demineralizer. The water next
flows through a stainless steel heat
exchanger. The water from the heat
exchanger is then returned to the reactor
pool. A magnetrol water-level control is
located in the reactor pool; this unit
controls a solenoid valve in the line
from the water supply tank to ensure
that the prescribed pool water level is
maintained. However, this system is
manually controlled by the PUR–1 staff
to allow markup water to be
inventoried. Makeup pool water is
provided by the city public water
supply.
A detailed description of the reactor
can be found in the PUR–1 Safety
Analysis Report (SAR) submitted by the
applicant with its renewal application.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
A. Radiological Impacts
Environmental Effects of Reactor
Operations
During normal operations at the PUR–
1 facility, the two primary airborne
sources of radiation are argon-41 (Ar-41)
and nitrogen-16 (N–16). N–16 is
produced when oxygen in the pool
water is irradiated in the reactor core,
and must then diffuse to the pool
surface before it is released to the
atmosphere. The applicant estimates
that, due to its short half-life (about 7
seconds), any N–16 produced by the
reactor at the bounding power level of
18 kW(t) would decay before reaching
the surface of the pool. The primary
source of Ar-41 at the PUR–1 is from
irradiation of air containing argon
dissolved in the reactor pool. At the
current 1 kW(t) steady-state operation,
effluent samples in the reactor room
have not contained detectable traces of
Ar-41. At the bounding power level of
18 kW(t), the applicant estimates that
steady-state operation of the reactor
would produce an equilibrium
concentration of 2.08 × 10¥7 mCi/cm3 of
Ar-41 in the exhaust air and the reactor
room, which is lower than the 3.0 ×
10¥6 mCi/cm3 Derived Air
Concentration (DAC) limit for
occupational workers found in 10 CFR
part 20. Due to the DAC being below
regulatory limits, the estimated
occupational radioactivity exposure
levels will also be below the 10 CFR
part 20 limit of 5 reontgen equivalent
man (rem). The estimated dose rate to a
worker at the bounding power level of
18 kW(t) was calculated by the
applicant to be 0.167 milli roentgen
equivalent man per hour (mrem/hr)
(0.00167 millisievert/hour (mSv/hr)).
Using the calculated dose rate, the total
effective dose equivalent to a worker in
the reactor room for an entire year
would be less than 334 mrem (3.34
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
mSv), assuming a hypothetical 2,000hour steady state, full power operation,
since the reactor license contains no
restriction on operating hours. The
reactor normally operates for much less
than the assumed 8 hours per day and
the conservatively calculated dose is
still well below the 5,000-mrem (50
mSv) limit established in § 20.1201,
‘‘Occupational dose limits for adults.’’
The applicant also calculated, at the
bounding 18 kW(t) power level, an
environmental public dose rate from
normal operations to a person in the
unrestricted area due to Ar-41 released
from the building ventilation opening.
The release point is on the roof vent on
the top of the building 15 meters above
ground. Assuming a hypothetical
continuous steady state, full power
operation for a year, the applicant
calculated the public dose rate to be
3.17 × 10¥4 mrem/hr (3.17 × 0¥6 mSv/
hr) or 2.8 mrem/yr (0.28 mSv/yr), which
is well below the limit in § 20.1301 of
100 mrem/yr (1 mSv/yr). This
calculated public dose rate would also
meet the as low as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA) dose constraint of
10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr) found in
§ 20.1101(d).
Purdue University has a structured
radiation safety program. Policies for the
program are determined by the
University Radiation Safety Committee,
which has the mission to ensure the
safety of the University and community
in the utilization of all radioactive
materials and radiation-producing
devices at the University by faculty,
staff, or students. The program is
administered by the Radiation Safety
Officer and his staff, as part of
Radiological and Environmental
Management. The staff is equipped with
radiation detection instrumentation to
determine, control, and document
occupational radiation exposures at the
reactor facility under the broad scope
byproduct materials license held by
Purdue University.
Only very limited contaminated
materials are generated by PUR–1. Any
contaminated material is disposed of
under the Purdue University broad
scope license. No wastes have been
released to the environment in an
uncontrolled manner. During the past 5year period from 2011 through 2015, the
applicant reported no routine releases of
liquid radioactive waste by any disposal
method. The NRC assumes that any
changes due to the requested power
increase from 1 kW(t) to 12 kW(t) are
expected to be minimal and capable of
being handled by the existing systems
and procedures.
As described in Chapter 11 of the
PUR–1 SAR, personnel exposures are
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
well within the limits set by § 20.1201,
‘‘Occupational dose limits for adults,’’
and the ALARA dose criteria in
§ 20.1101(b). The University is
committed to the principle of ALARA
and it makes every effort to keep doses
to a minimum. All unanticipated or
unusual exposures are investigated.
According to annual reports for the past
5 years of operation from 2011 through
2015, there were no radiation exposures
greater than 25 percent of limits set
forth in § 20.1201. The change in
occupational dose from the proposed
power uprate from 1 kW(t) to 12 kW(t)
is discussed previously in this notice.
The applicant monitors dose to the
public by placing thermoluminescent
dosimeters (TLD) at the boundaries of
the facility. The TLDs are checked for
exposure every other month. Doses
measured from the TLDs at the current
operating power level of 1 kW(t) have
been at background levels, therefore, the
applicant concludes that the public has
not received exposures greater than the
limits set forth in § 20.1301, ‘‘Dose
limits for individual members of the
public.’’ As stated previously, this
should not change for the proposed
power increase of 12 kW(t).
Additionally, the potential radiation
dose from current operations at 1kW(t)
also demonstrates compliance with the
ALARA dose constraints specified in
§ 20.1101(d), ‘‘Radiation protection
programs.’’ As stated previously, this
should not change for the proposed
power increase of 12 kW(t).
Over the past 5 years of operation
from 2011 through 2015, results from
the applicant’s survey program indicate
that radiation exposures at the current
operating power level of 1 kW(t) at the
monitoring locations were not
significantly higher than those
measured at the control locations. This
should not change for the proposed
power increase of 12 kW(t). Therefore,
the NRC concludes that the proposed
action would not have a significant
radiological impact.
Environmental Effects of Accidents
The maximum hypothetical accident
(MHA) is an event involving the
cladding failure of an irradiated fuel
element in air. The MHA is considered
the worst-case fuel failure scenario for
PUR–1 that would lead to the maximum
potential radiation hazard to facility
personnel and to members of the public.
The results of the MHA are used by the
NRC to evaluate the ability of the
applicant to respond and mitigate the
consequences of this postulated
radioactive release.
The applicant conservatively
calculated doses to facility personnel
E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM
27OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
during evacuation and the maximum
potential doses to members of the public
at various locations around the PUR–1
facility. The license estimated an
occupational dose of 317 mrem (3.17
mSv), for a one minute (evacuation)
duration, and 47 mrem (0.47 mSv) for
the maximum exposed member of the
public. The NRC performed
independent calculations to verify that
the applicant’s calculated doses
represented conservative estimates for
the MHA. The NRC, using conservative
assumptions, estimated a dose to a
worker of 294 mrem (2.94 mSv) for a
one minute duration, and 4 mrem (0.04
mSv) for the maximum exposed member
of the public. The details of these
calculations are provided in the NRC’s
SER that will be issued with the
renewed license. The occupational
radiation doses resulting from the
postulated MHA would be well below
the 10 CFR 20.1201 limit of 5,000 mrem
(50 mSv). The maximum calculated
radiation doses for members of the
public resulting from the postulated
MHA would be below the 10 CFR
20.1301 limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv).
Because the NRC concludes in the SE
that the radiological consequences of
the MHA are within the NRC’s 10 CFR
part 20 dose limits, the proposed action
will not have a significant impact with
respect to the radiological consequences
of the MHA.
Conclusions—Radiological Impacts
As discussed previously in this
notice, the applicant has requested a
power increase from 1kW to 12 kW
maximum allowed licensed power. In
addition, as previously described, while
there is a potential increase in routine
occupational and public radiation
exposure as a result of license renewal
at the higher power level, all exposure
rates and doses would be within
regulatory limits. There would be no
changes in the types of effluents that
may be released off site, and any
potential increase in their quantities
would be within regulatory limits. The
applicant has systems in place for
controlling the release of radiological
effluents and implements a radiation
protection program to monitor
personnel exposures and releases of
radioactive effluents, and the systems
and radiation protection program are
appropriate for the types and quantities
of effluents expected to be generated by
continued operation of the reactor. The
proposed action will not significantly
increase the probability or consequences
of accidents. Therefore, license renewal
and the proposed power increase would
not change the environmental impact of
facility operation. The NRC evaluated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
information contained in the renewal
application and data reported to the
NRC by the applicant for the last 5 years
of operation to determine the projected
radiological impact of the facility on the
environment during the period of the
renewed license. The NRC found that
releases of radioactive material and
personnel exposures were all well
within applicable regulatory limits.
Based on this evaluation, the NRC
concludes that the proposed action
would not have a significant
environmental impact.
B. Non-Radiological Impacts
The proposed action would not result
in any land use changes, visual resource
impacts, or increases in noise. No
significant changes in air emissions
would occur as a result of the proposed
license renewal and power increase.
Because water is supplied through the
city, the proposed action would not
affect surface water or groundwater
resources. There is no potential for the
proposed action to affect aquatic or
terrestrial resources. Therefore, the NRC
concludes that the proposed action
would have no significant nonradiological impacts.
Other Applicable Environmental Laws
In addition to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
NRC has responsibilities that are
derived from other environmental laws,
which include the Endangered Species
Act (ESA), Coastal Zone Management
Act, National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, and Executive Order 12898
Environmental Justice. Preparing this
EA satisfies the agency’s obligations
under NEPA. The following presents a
brief discussion of impacts associated
with resources protected by these laws.
Endangered Species Act
The NRC staff conducted a search of
Federally listed species and critical
habitats that have the potential to occur
in the vicinity of the PUR–1 using the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS)
Environmental Conservation Online
System Information for Planning and
Conservation (IPaC) system. Five
Federally-listed mussels—clubshell
(Pleurobema clava), fanshell
(Cyprogenia stegaria), snuffbox
(Epioblasma triquetra), rabbitsfoot
(Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical), and
sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphus)—and
the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) occur in
Tippecanoe County. However, none of
these species are likely to occur near the
PUR–1 because the facility is located on
the Purdue University Campus, which
has been developed since the 1960s and
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
74825
does not provide suitable habitat for
Federally-listed species. Additionally,
operation of PUR–1 has no direct nexus
to the natural environment that would
affect Federally-listed species.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
the proposed license renewal of the
PUR–1 would have no effect on
Federally-listed species or critical
habitats. Federal agencies are not
required to consult with the FWS if they
determine that an action will not affect
listed species or critical habitats
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16120A505).
Thus, the ESA does not require
consultation for the proposed PUR–1
license renewal and proposed power
uprate, and the NRC considers its
obligations under ESA section 7 to be
fulfilled for the proposed action.
Costal Zone Management Act
Tippecanoe County, Indiana does not
contain any coastal zones. Because the
PUR–1 is not located within or near any
managed coastal zones, the proposed
action would not affect any coastal
zones and Coastal Zone Management
Act consistency certification does not
apply.
National Historic Preservation Act
The NHPA requires Federal agencies
to consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties. As
stated in the Act, historic properties are
any prehistoric or historic district, site,
building, structure, or object included
in, or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). The NRHP lists several historic
districts and properties within 0.5 miles
of PUR–1 in the Duncan Annex of the
Electrical Engineering Building on the
campus of Purdue University. Operation
of PUR–1 has not likely had any impact
on these districts and properties. Based
on this information, the NRC staff finds
that the potential impacts of license
renewal and the continued operation of
PUR–1 would have no adverse effect on
historic properties located near PUR–1.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The proposed action does not involve
any water resource development
projects, including any of the
modifications relating to impounding a
body of water, damming, diverting a
stream or river, deepening a channel,
irrigation, or altering a body of water for
navigation or drainage. Therefore, no
coordination with FWS pursuant to the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is
required for the proposed action.
E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM
27OCN1
74826
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Notices
Executive Order 12898—Environmental
Justice
The environmental justice impact
analysis evaluates the potential for
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income
populations that could result from the
relicensing and the continued operation
of PUR–1. Such effects may include
human health, biological, cultural,
economic, or social impacts.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity
of PUR–1. According to U.S. Census
Bureau’s 2010 Census, approximately 21
percent of the total population
(approximately 164,000 individuals)
residing within a 10-mile radius of
PUR–1 identified themselves as
minorities. The largest minority
population were Hispanic, Latino, or
Spanish origin of any race at
(approximately 12,800 or 8 percent),
followed by Asian (approximately
10,700 persons or 7 percent). According
to the 2010 Census, about 20 percent of
the Tippecanoe County population
identified themselves as minorities,
with persons of Hispanic, Latino, or
Spanish origin and Asians comprising
the largest minority populations
(approximately 8 and 7 percent,
respectively). According to the U.S.
Census Bureau’s 2014 American
Community Survey 1-year Estimates,
the minority population of Tippecanoe
County, as a percent of the total
population, had increased to about 22
percent.
Low-income Populations in the
Vicinity of PUR–1. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau’s 2010–2014 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,
approximately 36,000 persons and 4,000
families (approximately 22.7 and 11.7
percent, respectively) residing within a
10-mile radius of PUR–1 were identified
as living below the Federal poverty
threshold. The 2014 Federal poverty
threshold was $24,230 for a family of
four.
According to the U.S. Census
Bureau’s 2014 American Community
Survey Census 1-Year Estimates, the
median household income for Indiana
was $49,446, while 11 percent of
families and 15.2 percent of the state
population were found to be living
below the Federal poverty threshold.
Tippecanoe County had a lower median
household income average ($45,771)
and a higher percent of families and
people living below the poverty level
(12.2 and 23.6 percent, respectively).
Impact Analysis. Potential impacts to
minority and low-income populations
would mostly consist of radiological
effects, however, radiation doses from
continued operations associated with
the license renewal and the proposed
power increase are expected to continue
at current levels, and would be well
below regulatory limits.
Based on this information and the
analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this
EA, the proposed action would not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income
populations residing in the vicinity of
PUR–1.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to license renewal,
the NRC considered denying the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). If the NRC denied the
request for license renewal, reactor
operations would cease and
decommissioning would be required.
The NRC notes that, even with a
renewed license, PUR–1 will eventually
be decommissioned, at which time the
environmental effects of
decommissioning would occur.
Decommissioning would be conducted
in accordance with an NRC-approved
decommissioning plan, which would
require a separate environmental review
under § 51.21. Cessation of reactor
operations would reduce or eliminate
radioactive effluents. However, as
previously discussed in this EA,
radioactive effluents from reactor
operations constitute a small fraction of
the applicable regulatory limits.
Therefore, the environmental impacts of
license renewal, including the proposed
power uprate, and the denial of the
request for license renewal would be
similar. In addition, denying the request
for license renewal would eliminate the
benefits of teaching, research, and
services provided by the PUR–1 facility.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed action does not involve
the use of any different resources or
significant quantities of resources
beyond those previously considered in
the issuance of Facility Operating
License No. R–87 for the PUR–1 in
August 1988, which renewed the
Facility Operating License for a period
of 20 years.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC did not enter into
consultation with any other Federal
agencies or with the State of Indiana
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. However, on
October 21, 2016, the NRC notified the
Indiana State official, Ms. Laura Dresen,
Radiation Programs Director, of the
Indiana Department of Homeland
Security of the proposed action. The
State official had no comments.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC is considering issuance of a
renewed Facility Operating License No.
R–87, held by Purdue University, which
would authorize the continued
operation of PUR–1 for an additional 20
years.
On the basis of the EA included in
Section II of this notice and
incorporated by reference in this
finding, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action would not have
significant effects on the quality of the
human environment. Section IV lists the
environmental documents related to the
proposed action and includes
information on the availability of these
documents. Based on its findings, the
NRC has decided not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
IV. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the
following tables are available to
interested persons as indicated.
ADAMS
accession No.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Document
Purdue University, School of Nuclear Engineering. Application for relicense of License Number R–87 with Power Uprate, July 7,
2008 .................................................................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University Safety Analysis Report, June 30, 2008 [Redacted Version] .................................................................................
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding License Renewal, [Decommissioning Funding Statement
of Intent], June 3, 2010 ....................................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University—Request For Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal (Tac No. Me
1594), Responses to RAIs Dated 24 March 2010, [Responses To ML100820019, financial assurance, statement of intent, signature authority, financial report], June 4, 2010 ..............................................................................................................................
Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal (TAC ME1594), Response to RAIs Dated 6 July 2011 (ML101460429), November 15, 2011 .....................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM
27OCN1
ML083040443
ML111890201
ML101620125
ML101620184
ML11320A287
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Notices
ADAMS
accession No.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Document
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Renewal, Responses to RAIs Dated 6 July 2011,
[Responses 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 37], January 4, 2012 .........................................
Purdue University—Responses to the Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal dated July 6, 2011, [Responses 3, 4, 7, 10, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 29, 34, and 40], January 30, 2012 ..................................
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal (TAC NO.
ME 1594), Responses to RAIS (ML103400115 and ML103400250) (Redacted Version), [Responses 45, 55, 62, 65, 66, 67,
68, 70, and 73], January 31, 2012 ..................................................................................................................................................
Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal (TAC ME1594), Responses to
RAIs (ML103400115 and ML103400250), [Responses 43, 51, 56, 60, and 61], June 1, 2012 .....................................................
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal (TAC No.
ME1594), Responses to RAIs (ML103400115 and ML103400250), [Response 46, 47, 52, 57, and 59], June 15, 2012 ............
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal, Responses
to RAIs (ML103400115 and ML103400250), [Response 48, 58, 96, 97 and 98], June 29, 2012 .................................................
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal, Response to
RAI, [Response 49, 50, 53, 64, and 72], July 13, 2012 ..................................................................................................................
Purdue University—Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
(TAC No. ME1594, Responses to RAIs (ML103400115 and ML103400250), [Responses 54, 69, 77, 78, and 92], August 11,
2012 .................................................................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University—Response to Request Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License
Renewal (TAC ME1594), [Responses 54, 69, 77, 78, and 92], April 10, 2013 ..............................................................................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Consultations Frequently Asked Questions, July 15, 2013 ...........................
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor Operations For the Period January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011,
July 18, 2013 ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor Operations For the Period January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012,
July 18, 2013 ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor Operations For the Period January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013,
May 22, 2014 ...................................................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor Operations For the Period January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014,
March 30, 2015 ................................................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal Application
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), [RAI cover letter for responses to August
29, 2015 NRC letter], July 24, 2015 ................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal Application
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 1 of 5, [RAI Responses part 1 of 5:
responses (1–29), TS (30–64), d/c cost estimate (65–68), Requal (69–73), SAR Chs. 1–5 (70–162)], July 24, 2015 ................
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal Application
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 2 of 5, [RAI Responses part 2 of 5
(SAR Chs. 6–15)], July 24, 2015 .....................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal Application
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 3 of 5, [RAI Responses Part 3 of 5
(drawings)], July 24, 2015 ................................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal Application
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 4 of 5, [RAI Responses Part 4 of 5
(drawings)], July 24, 2015 ................................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal Application
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 5 of 5, [RAI Responses part 5 of 5
(NATCON, Procedures, Drawings)], July 24, 2015 .........................................................................................................................
Purdue University—Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Physical Security Plan Review for License
Renewal, January 29, 2016 .............................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University—Re-Submittal Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Physical Security Plan Review for License Renewal, February 26, 2016 ................................................................................................................................
Purdue Re-Submittal of Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Re: Physical Security Plan Review for License
Renewal, March 31, 2016 ................................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor Operations For the Period January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015,
March 31, 2016 ................................................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University—Second Re-Submittal of Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Physical Security
Plan Review for License Renewal, May 9, 2016 .............................................................................................................................
Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering Notice of ADAMS Document Correction, PUR–1, Docket 50–182,
ML16187A371, Technical Specifications, Proposed Amendment 13 Enclosed, [Correction of the TSs, originally submitted
under ML16187A371], July 7, 2016 .................................................................................................................................................
Purdue University Responses to Request for Additional Information re PUR–1 License Renewal and Power Uprate, [Responses
to RAIs ML15328A314], July 19, 2016 ............................................................................................................................................
Purdue University—Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Reactor License Renewal Application, Responses to Letter dated July 25, 2016, September 19, 2016 .........................................................................................................
Purdue University—Explanation of Technical Specification Changes and Emergency Operator Action, September 29, 2016 ........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
74827
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM
27OCN1
ML12006A193
ML12031A223
ML14234A109
ML12156A364
ML12170B018
ML12170B018
ML12201A070
ML12226A400
ML13101A044
ML16120A505
ML13203A081
ML13203A082
ML14154A123
ML15092A160
ML15210A280
ML15210A282
ML15210A283
ML15210A285
ML15210A287
ML15210A288
ML16047A382
ML16083A219
ML16102A123
ML16102A119
ML16134A143
ML16193A681
ML16207A426
ML16267A465
ML16277A165
74828
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Notices
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day
October, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alexander Adams, Jr.,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch,
Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016–25993 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374; NRC–
2014–0268]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC.;
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2;
License Renewal
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: License renewal and record of
decision; issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has issued renewed
facility operating license Nos. NPF–11
and NPF–18 to Exelon Generation
Company, LLC (Exelon or the licensee),
the operator of LaSalle County Station,
Units 1 and 2. Renewed facility
operating license Nos. NPF–11 and
NPF–18 authorize the operation of
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 by
the licensee at reactor core power levels
not in excess of 3546 megawatts thermal
in accordance with the provisions of the
renewed licenses and technical
specifications until April 17, 2042 and
December 16, 2043, respectively. The
NRC prepared a safety evaluation report,
a final supplemental environmental
impact statement (FSEIS), and a record
of decision (ROD) that support its
decision to issue renewed facility
operating license Nos. NPF–11 and
NPF–18.
DATES: Renewed facility operating
license Nos. NPF–11 and NPF–18 were
issued and effective on October 19,
2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2014–0268 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2014–0268. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:43 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Mitchell, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
3019; email: Jeffrey.Mitchell2@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that the NRC has issued
renewed facility operating license Nos.
NPF–11 and NPF–18 to Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, the operator
of LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and
2. Renewed facility operating license
Nos. NPF–11 and NPF–18 authorize the
operation of LaSalle County Station,
Units 1 and 2 by the licensee at reactor
core power levels not in excess of 3546
megawatts thermal in accordance with
the provisions of the renewed licenses
and technical specifications until April
17, 2042 and December 16, 2043,
respectively.
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2,
are boiling-water reactors located in
Brookfield Township, LaSalle County,
Illinois. The NRC determined that the
application for the renewed licenses,
‘‘License Renewal Application, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF–11 and
NPF–18,’’ dated December 9, 2014
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14343A849),
as supplemented by letters dated
through June 8, 2016, complied with the
standards and requirements of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the NRC’s regulations set
forth in Chapter I of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). As
required by the Act and the NRC’s
regulations, the NRC has made the
appropriate findings, which are set forth
in the renewed licenses. A public notice
of the proposed issuance of the renewed
licenses and an opportunity to request
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a hearing was published in the Federal
Register on February 3, 2015 (80 FR
5822).
The NRC’s FSEIS, NUREG–1437,
Supplement 57, ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
Regarding LaSalle County Station, Units
1 and 2,’’ and ROD that support the
NRC’s issuance of renewed facility
operating license Nos. NPF–11 and
NPF–18 are available in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16264A222 and
ML16238A029, respectively. As
discussed in the FSEIS and ROD, the
NRC considered a range of reasonable
alternatives to the issuance of the
renewed licenses that included new
nuclear power generation, coalintegrated gasification combined-cycle,
natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC), a
combination of wind, solar, and NGCC,
purchased power, and the no-action
alternative. The FSEIS and ROD
document the NRC’s decision with
respect to its environmental review that
the adverse environmental impacts of
issuing the renewed licenses are not so
great that preserving the option of
license renewal for energy-planning
decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
For further details with respect to this
action, see: (1) The Exelon Generation
Company, LLC license renewal
application for LaSalle County Station,
Units 1 and 2, dated December 9, 2014,
as supplemented by letters dated
through June 8, 2016; (2) the NRC safety
evaluation report dated September 2016
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16271A039);
(3) the NRC FSEIS dated August 2016;
and (4) the NRC ROD dated October
2016.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day
of October, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jane E. Marshall,
Acting Director, Division of License Renewal,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016–25988 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–79133; File No. SR–CBOE–
2016–071]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Opening and Closing Rotations Under
the HOSS System
October 21, 2016.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM
27OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74822-74828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25993]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-182; NRC-2011-0186]
Purdue University Reactor
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[[Page 74823]]
ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-87, held by Purdue
University (the applicant), for the continued operation of the Purdue
University Reactor (PUR-1), located in West Lafayette, Tippecanoe
County, Indiana for an additional 20 years. In connection with the
renewed license, the applicant is also seeking a power increase from 1
kilowatt thermal (kW(t)) to a licensed power level of 12 kW(t). The NRC
is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) associated with the renewal of the license.
DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in this document is available on
October 27, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0186 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0186. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For
the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided
in a table in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy K. Montgomery, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3398; email: Cindy.Montgomery@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is considering issuance of a renewed Facility Operating
License No. R-87, held by Purdue University, which would authorize
continued operation of PUR-1, located in West Lafayette, Tippecanoe
County, Indiana, for an additional 20 years. In connection with the
renewed license, the applicant is also seeking a power increase from 1
kW(t) to 12 kW(t). As required by section 51.21 of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Criteria for and identification of
licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments,''
the NRC performed an EA. Based on the results of the EA that follows,
the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement
for the proposed action and is issuing a FONSI.
II. Environmental Assessment
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew Facility Operating License No. R-87
for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance of the renewed
license. The proposed action would also authorize a power increase from
1 kW(t) to 12 kW(t). The proposed action is in accordance with Purdue
University's application dated July 7, 2008, as supplemented by letters
dated June 30, 2008; June 3, and June 4, 2010; November 15, 2011;
January 4, January 30, January 31, June 1, June 15, June 29, July 13,
and August 11, 2012; April 10, 2013; July 24, 2015; and January 29,
February 26, March 31, May 9, July 7, July 19, September 19, and
September 29, 2016 (collectively referred to as ``the renewal
application''). In accordance with Sec. 2.109, ``Effect of timely
renewal application,'' the existing license remains in effect until the
NRC takes final action on the renewal application.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to allow the continued operation of
the PUR-1, which is used for teaching and research to support the
mission of Purdue University, for a period of 20 years. Operation of
the PUR-1 at the requested higher power level would expand the
educational and research uses of the facility.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
Separate from the environmental assessment referenced in this
document, the NRC is writing a safety evaluation (SE) of the proposed
action to issue renewed Facility Operating License No. R-87 to allow
continued operation of the PUR-1 for a period of 20 years. The details
of the NRC's SE will be provided with the renewed license, if approved.
This document contains the EA of the proposed action.
The applicant has requested a power increase from 1 kW(t) to 12
kW(t) maximum allowed licensed power. The applicant performed analyses
at 18 kW(t) to bound the requested power increase. The applicant's
required annual reports from 2011 through 2015 indicate that no
measurable amount of radioactive effluent was released from the PUR-1
to the environment.
Facility Site and Environs
The PUR-1 is a heterogeneous, pool-type non-power reactor that has
been in operation since 1962 for teaching and research purposes. The
PUR-1 is located in the Duncan Annex of the Electrical Engineering
Building on the eastern edge of the Purdue University campus. The
building was originally designed as a high voltage laboratory, and the
space was later converted into classrooms, laboratories, and offices.
The building is constructed of brick, concrete block, and reinforced
concrete. Within the Duncan Annex, the PUR-1 is located within a 6,400-
gallon cylindrical water tank that is 17 feet deep and 8 feet in
diameter. The tank is enclosed by a concrete shielding structure.
The PUR-1 operates about 90 times per year on average. The reactor
is fueled with standard low-enriched uranium plate-type fuel and is
cooled by natural convection of light water. The reactor coolant system
includes a process system, which controls the pool water temperature,
and a purification system, which is designed to maintain pool water
quality by limiting corrosion and coolant activation by the use of
microfilters and ion exchange resins. Water from the pool is drawn out
from the scupper drain or suction line via polyvinyl chloride piping
leading to the circulating pump; a second source of water for the pump
is a water supply tank supplied with city service water and controlled
by a float valve. Ball valves for water shutoff and a vacuum cleaning
connection are provided in the pump supply line. From the pump, a pipe
with a ball valve installed leads first to the filter and then to a
demineralizer. An adjustable by-pass or throttling valve is inserted in
the system to regulate water flow through the demineralizer. A flow
indicator and a conductivity indicator are installed as a check on flow
rate and water purity
[[Page 74824]]
from the demineralizer. The water next flows through a stainless steel
heat exchanger. The water from the heat exchanger is then returned to
the reactor pool. A magnetrol water-level control is located in the
reactor pool; this unit controls a solenoid valve in the line from the
water supply tank to ensure that the prescribed pool water level is
maintained. However, this system is manually controlled by the PUR-1
staff to allow markup water to be inventoried. Makeup pool water is
provided by the city public water supply.
A detailed description of the reactor can be found in the PUR-1
Safety Analysis Report (SAR) submitted by the applicant with its
renewal application.
A. Radiological Impacts
Environmental Effects of Reactor Operations
During normal operations at the PUR-1 facility, the two primary
airborne sources of radiation are argon-41 (Ar-41) and nitrogen-16 (N-
16). N-16 is produced when oxygen in the pool water is irradiated in
the reactor core, and must then diffuse to the pool surface before it
is released to the atmosphere. The applicant estimates that, due to its
short half-life (about 7 seconds), any N-16 produced by the reactor at
the bounding power level of 18 kW(t) would decay before reaching the
surface of the pool. The primary source of Ar-41 at the PUR-1 is from
irradiation of air containing argon dissolved in the reactor pool. At
the current 1 kW(t) steady-state operation, effluent samples in the
reactor room have not contained detectable traces of Ar-41. At the
bounding power level of 18 kW(t), the applicant estimates that steady-
state operation of the reactor would produce an equilibrium
concentration of 2.08 x 10-7 [mu]Ci/cm\3\ of Ar-41 in the
exhaust air and the reactor room, which is lower than the 3.0 x
10-6 [mu]Ci/cm\3\ Derived Air Concentration (DAC) limit for
occupational workers found in 10 CFR part 20. Due to the DAC being
below regulatory limits, the estimated occupational radioactivity
exposure levels will also be below the 10 CFR part 20 limit of 5
reontgen equivalent man (rem). The estimated dose rate to a worker at
the bounding power level of 18 kW(t) was calculated by the applicant to
be 0.167 milli roentgen equivalent man per hour (mrem/hr) (0.00167
millisievert/hour (mSv/hr)). Using the calculated dose rate, the total
effective dose equivalent to a worker in the reactor room for an entire
year would be less than 334 mrem (3.34 mSv), assuming a hypothetical
2,000-hour steady state, full power operation, since the reactor
license contains no restriction on operating hours. The reactor
normally operates for much less than the assumed 8 hours per day and
the conservatively calculated dose is still well below the 5,000-mrem
(50 mSv) limit established in Sec. 20.1201, ``Occupational dose limits
for adults.'' The applicant also calculated, at the bounding 18 kW(t)
power level, an environmental public dose rate from normal operations
to a person in the unrestricted area due to Ar-41 released from the
building ventilation opening. The release point is on the roof vent on
the top of the building 15 meters above ground. Assuming a hypothetical
continuous steady state, full power operation for a year, the applicant
calculated the public dose rate to be 3.17 x 10-4 mrem/hr
(3.17 x 0-6 mSv/hr) or 2.8 mrem/yr (0.28 mSv/yr), which is
well below the limit in Sec. 20.1301 of 100 mrem/yr (1 mSv/yr). This
calculated public dose rate would also meet the as low as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA) dose constraint of 10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr) found in
Sec. 20.1101(d).
Purdue University has a structured radiation safety program.
Policies for the program are determined by the University Radiation
Safety Committee, which has the mission to ensure the safety of the
University and community in the utilization of all radioactive
materials and radiation-producing devices at the University by faculty,
staff, or students. The program is administered by the Radiation Safety
Officer and his staff, as part of Radiological and Environmental
Management. The staff is equipped with radiation detection
instrumentation to determine, control, and document occupational
radiation exposures at the reactor facility under the broad scope
byproduct materials license held by Purdue University.
Only very limited contaminated materials are generated by PUR-1.
Any contaminated material is disposed of under the Purdue University
broad scope license. No wastes have been released to the environment in
an uncontrolled manner. During the past 5-year period from 2011 through
2015, the applicant reported no routine releases of liquid radioactive
waste by any disposal method. The NRC assumes that any changes due to
the requested power increase from 1 kW(t) to 12 kW(t) are expected to
be minimal and capable of being handled by the existing systems and
procedures.
As described in Chapter 11 of the PUR-1 SAR, personnel exposures
are well within the limits set by Sec. 20.1201, ``Occupational dose
limits for adults,'' and the ALARA dose criteria in Sec. 20.1101(b).
The University is committed to the principle of ALARA and it makes
every effort to keep doses to a minimum. All unanticipated or unusual
exposures are investigated. According to annual reports for the past 5
years of operation from 2011 through 2015, there were no radiation
exposures greater than 25 percent of limits set forth in Sec. 20.1201.
The change in occupational dose from the proposed power uprate from 1
kW(t) to 12 kW(t) is discussed previously in this notice.
The applicant monitors dose to the public by placing
thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) at the boundaries of the facility.
The TLDs are checked for exposure every other month. Doses measured
from the TLDs at the current operating power level of 1 kW(t) have been
at background levels, therefore, the applicant concludes that the
public has not received exposures greater than the limits set forth in
Sec. 20.1301, ``Dose limits for individual members of the public.'' As
stated previously, this should not change for the proposed power
increase of 12 kW(t). Additionally, the potential radiation dose from
current operations at 1kW(t) also demonstrates compliance with the
ALARA dose constraints specified in Sec. 20.1101(d), ``Radiation
protection programs.'' As stated previously, this should not change for
the proposed power increase of 12 kW(t).
Over the past 5 years of operation from 2011 through 2015, results
from the applicant's survey program indicate that radiation exposures
at the current operating power level of 1 kW(t) at the monitoring
locations were not significantly higher than those measured at the
control locations. This should not change for the proposed power
increase of 12 kW(t). Therefore, the NRC concludes that the proposed
action would not have a significant radiological impact.
Environmental Effects of Accidents
The maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) is an event involving the
cladding failure of an irradiated fuel element in air. The MHA is
considered the worst-case fuel failure scenario for PUR-1 that would
lead to the maximum potential radiation hazard to facility personnel
and to members of the public. The results of the MHA are used by the
NRC to evaluate the ability of the applicant to respond and mitigate
the consequences of this postulated radioactive release.
The applicant conservatively calculated doses to facility personnel
[[Page 74825]]
during evacuation and the maximum potential doses to members of the
public at various locations around the PUR-1 facility. The license
estimated an occupational dose of 317 mrem (3.17 mSv), for a one minute
(evacuation) duration, and 47 mrem (0.47 mSv) for the maximum exposed
member of the public. The NRC performed independent calculations to
verify that the applicant's calculated doses represented conservative
estimates for the MHA. The NRC, using conservative assumptions,
estimated a dose to a worker of 294 mrem (2.94 mSv) for a one minute
duration, and 4 mrem (0.04 mSv) for the maximum exposed member of the
public. The details of these calculations are provided in the NRC's SER
that will be issued with the renewed license. The occupational
radiation doses resulting from the postulated MHA would be well below
the 10 CFR 20.1201 limit of 5,000 mrem (50 mSv). The maximum calculated
radiation doses for members of the public resulting from the postulated
MHA would be below the 10 CFR 20.1301 limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv).
Because the NRC concludes in the SE that the radiological
consequences of the MHA are within the NRC's 10 CFR part 20 dose
limits, the proposed action will not have a significant impact with
respect to the radiological consequences of the MHA.
Conclusions--Radiological Impacts
As discussed previously in this notice, the applicant has requested
a power increase from 1kW to 12 kW maximum allowed licensed power. In
addition, as previously described, while there is a potential increase
in routine occupational and public radiation exposure as a result of
license renewal at the higher power level, all exposure rates and doses
would be within regulatory limits. There would be no changes in the
types of effluents that may be released off site, and any potential
increase in their quantities would be within regulatory limits. The
applicant has systems in place for controlling the release of
radiological effluents and implements a radiation protection program to
monitor personnel exposures and releases of radioactive effluents, and
the systems and radiation protection program are appropriate for the
types and quantities of effluents expected to be generated by continued
operation of the reactor. The proposed action will not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of accidents. Therefore,
license renewal and the proposed power increase would not change the
environmental impact of facility operation. The NRC evaluated
information contained in the renewal application and data reported to
the NRC by the applicant for the last 5 years of operation to determine
the projected radiological impact of the facility on the environment
during the period of the renewed license. The NRC found that releases
of radioactive material and personnel exposures were all well within
applicable regulatory limits. Based on this evaluation, the NRC
concludes that the proposed action would not have a significant
environmental impact.
B. Non-Radiological Impacts
The proposed action would not result in any land use changes,
visual resource impacts, or increases in noise. No significant changes
in air emissions would occur as a result of the proposed license
renewal and power increase. Because water is supplied through the city,
the proposed action would not affect surface water or groundwater
resources. There is no potential for the proposed action to affect
aquatic or terrestrial resources. Therefore, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action would have no significant non-radiological impacts.
Other Applicable Environmental Laws
In addition to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
NRC has responsibilities that are derived from other environmental
laws, which include the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Coastal Zone
Management Act, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, and Executive Order 12898 Environmental
Justice. Preparing this EA satisfies the agency's obligations under
NEPA. The following presents a brief discussion of impacts associated
with resources protected by these laws.
Endangered Species Act
The NRC staff conducted a search of Federally listed species and
critical habitats that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of
the PUR-1 using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS)
Environmental Conservation Online System Information for Planning and
Conservation (IPaC) system. Five Federally-listed mussels--clubshell
(Pleurobema clava), fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria), snuffbox
(Epioblasma triquetra), rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical),
and sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphus)--and the Indiana bat (Myotis
sodalis) occur in Tippecanoe County. However, none of these species are
likely to occur near the PUR-1 because the facility is located on the
Purdue University Campus, which has been developed since the 1960s and
does not provide suitable habitat for Federally-listed species.
Additionally, operation of PUR-1 has no direct nexus to the natural
environment that would affect Federally-listed species. Accordingly,
the NRC concludes that the proposed license renewal of the PUR-1 would
have no effect on Federally-listed species or critical habitats.
Federal agencies are not required to consult with the FWS if they
determine that an action will not affect listed species or critical
habitats (ADAMS Accession No. ML16120A505). Thus, the ESA does not
require consultation for the proposed PUR-1 license renewal and
proposed power uprate, and the NRC considers its obligations under ESA
section 7 to be fulfilled for the proposed action.
Costal Zone Management Act
Tippecanoe County, Indiana does not contain any coastal zones.
Because the PUR-1 is not located within or near any managed coastal
zones, the proposed action would not affect any coastal zones and
Coastal Zone Management Act consistency certification does not apply.
National Historic Preservation Act
The NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties. As stated in the Act, historic
properties are any prehistoric or historic district, site, building,
structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP lists several
historic districts and properties within 0.5 miles of PUR-1 in the
Duncan Annex of the Electrical Engineering Building on the campus of
Purdue University. Operation of PUR-1 has not likely had any impact on
these districts and properties. Based on this information, the NRC
staff finds that the potential impacts of license renewal and the
continued operation of PUR-1 would have no adverse effect on historic
properties located near PUR-1.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The proposed action does not involve any water resource development
projects, including any of the modifications relating to impounding a
body of water, damming, diverting a stream or river, deepening a
channel, irrigation, or altering a body of water for navigation or
drainage. Therefore, no coordination with FWS pursuant to the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act is required for the proposed action.
[[Page 74826]]
Executive Order 12898--Environmental Justice
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from
the relicensing and the continued operation of PUR-1. Such effects may
include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or social
impacts.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity of PUR-1. According to U.S.
Census Bureau's 2010 Census, approximately 21 percent of the total
population (approximately 164,000 individuals) residing within a 10-
mile radius of PUR-1 identified themselves as minorities. The largest
minority population were Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin of any
race at (approximately 12,800 or 8 percent), followed by Asian
(approximately 10,700 persons or 7 percent). According to the 2010
Census, about 20 percent of the Tippecanoe County population identified
themselves as minorities, with persons of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish
origin and Asians comprising the largest minority populations
(approximately 8 and 7 percent, respectively). According to the U.S.
Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey 1-year Estimates, the
minority population of Tippecanoe County, as a percent of the total
population, had increased to about 22 percent.
Low-income Populations in the Vicinity of PUR-1. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau's 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, approximately 36,000 persons and 4,000 families
(approximately 22.7 and 11.7 percent, respectively) residing within a
10-mile radius of PUR-1 were identified as living below the Federal
poverty threshold. The 2014 Federal poverty threshold was $24,230 for a
family of four.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2014 American Community
Survey Census 1-Year Estimates, the median household income for Indiana
was $49,446, while 11 percent of families and 15.2 percent of the state
population were found to be living below the Federal poverty threshold.
Tippecanoe County had a lower median household income average ($45,771)
and a higher percent of families and people living below the poverty
level (12.2 and 23.6 percent, respectively).
Impact Analysis. Potential impacts to minority and low-income
populations would mostly consist of radiological effects, however,
radiation doses from continued operations associated with the license
renewal and the proposed power increase are expected to continue at
current levels, and would be well below regulatory limits.
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this EA, the proposed action would
not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing
in the vicinity of PUR-1.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to license renewal, the NRC considered denying
the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). If the NRC
denied the request for license renewal, reactor operations would cease
and decommissioning would be required. The NRC notes that, even with a
renewed license, PUR-1 will eventually be decommissioned, at which time
the environmental effects of decommissioning would occur.
Decommissioning would be conducted in accordance with an NRC-approved
decommissioning plan, which would require a separate environmental
review under Sec. 51.21. Cessation of reactor operations would reduce
or eliminate radioactive effluents. However, as previously discussed in
this EA, radioactive effluents from reactor operations constitute a
small fraction of the applicable regulatory limits. Therefore, the
environmental impacts of license renewal, including the proposed power
uprate, and the denial of the request for license renewal would be
similar. In addition, denying the request for license renewal would
eliminate the benefits of teaching, research, and services provided by
the PUR-1 facility.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed action does not involve the use of any different
resources or significant quantities of resources beyond those
previously considered in the issuance of Facility Operating License No.
R-87 for the PUR-1 in August 1988, which renewed the Facility Operating
License for a period of 20 years.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC did not enter into consultation with any other Federal
agencies or with the State of Indiana regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. However, on October 21, 2016, the NRC
notified the Indiana State official, Ms. Laura Dresen, Radiation
Programs Director, of the Indiana Department of Homeland Security of
the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC is considering issuance of a renewed Facility Operating
License No. R-87, held by Purdue University, which would authorize the
continued operation of PUR-1 for an additional 20 years.
On the basis of the EA included in Section II of this notice and
incorporated by reference in this finding, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action would not have significant effects on the quality of
the human environment. Section IV lists the environmental documents
related to the proposed action and includes information on the
availability of these documents. Based on its findings, the NRC has
decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
IV. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following tables are available to
interested persons as indicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS
Document accession No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purdue University, School of Nuclear Engineering. ML083040443
Application for relicense of License Number R-87 with
Power Uprate, July 7, 2008.............................
Purdue University Safety Analysis Report, June 30, 2008 ML111890201
[Redacted Version].....................................
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML101620125
(RAI) Regarding License Renewal, [Decommissioning
Funding Statement of Intent], June 3, 2010.............
Purdue University--Request For Additional Information ML101620184
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
(Tac No. Me 1594), Responses to RAIs Dated 24 March
2010, [Responses To ML100820019, financial assurance,
statement of intent, signature authority, financial
report], June 4, 2010..................................
Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding ML11320A287
the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal (TAC
ME1594), Response to RAIs Dated 6 July 2011
(ML101460429), November 15, 2011.......................
[[Page 74827]]
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML12006A193
Regarding the License Renewal, Responses to RAIs Dated
6 July 2011, [Responses 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23,
25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 37], January 4,
2012...................................................
Purdue University--Responses to the Request for ML12031A223
Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University
Reactor License Renewal dated July 6, 2011, [Responses
3, 4, 7, 10, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 29, 34, and 40],
January 30, 2012.......................................
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML14234A109
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
(TAC NO. ME 1594), Responses to RAIS (ML103400115 and
ML103400250) (Redacted Version), [Responses 45, 55, 62,
65, 66, 67, 68, 70, and 73], January 31, 2012..........
Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue ML12156A364
University Reactor License Renewal (TAC ME1594),
Responses to RAIs (ML103400115 and ML103400250),
[Responses 43, 51, 56, 60, and 61], June 1, 2012.......
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML12170B018
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to RAIs (ML103400115 and
ML103400250), [Response 46, 47, 52, 57, and 59], June
15, 2012...............................................
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML12170B018
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License
Renewal, Responses to RAIs (ML103400115 and
ML103400250), [Response 48, 58, 96, 97 and 98], June
29, 2012...............................................
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML12201A070
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License
Renewal, Response to RAI, [Response 49, 50, 53, 64, and
72], July 13, 2012.....................................
Purdue University--Response to Request for Additional ML12226A400
Information Regarding Purdue University Reactor License
Renewal (TAC No. ME1594, Responses to RAIs (ML103400115
and ML103400250), [Responses 54, 69, 77, 78, and 92],
August 11, 2012........................................
Purdue University--Response to Request Request for ML13101A044
Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University
Reactor License Renewal (TAC ME1594), [Responses 54,
69, 77, 78, and 92], April 10, 2013....................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species ML16120A505
Consultations Frequently Asked Questions, July 15, 2013
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor ML13203A081
Operations For the Period January 1, 2011 to December
31, 2011, July 18, 2013................................
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor ML13203A082
Operations For the Period January 1, 2012 to December
31, 2012, July 18, 2013................................
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor ML14154A123
Operations For the Period January 1, 2013 to December
31, 2013, May 22, 2014.................................
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor ML15092A160
Operations For the Period January 1, 2014 to December
31, 2014, March 30, 2015...............................
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML15210A280
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
Application (TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated
August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), [RAI cover letter for
responses to August 29, 2015 NRC letter], July 24, 2015
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML15210A282
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
Application (TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated
August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 1 of 5, [RAI
Responses part 1 of 5: responses (1-29), TS (30-64), d/
c cost estimate (65-68), Requal (69-73), SAR Chs. 1-5
(70-162)], July 24, 2015...............................
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML15210A283
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
Application (TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated
August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 2 of 5, [RAI
Responses part 2 of 5 (SAR Chs. 6-15)], July 24, 2015..
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML15210A285
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
Application (TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated
August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 3 of 5, [RAI
Responses Part 3 of 5 (drawings)], July 24, 2015.......
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML15210A287
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
Application (TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated
August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 4 of 5, [RAI
Responses Part 4 of 5 (drawings)], July 24, 2015.......
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML15210A288
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
Application (TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated
August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 5 of 5, [RAI
Responses part 5 of 5 (NATCON, Procedures, Drawings)],
July 24, 2015..........................................
Purdue University--Response to NRC Request for ML16047A382
Additional Information Regarding Physical Security Plan
Review for License Renewal, January 29, 2016...........
Purdue University--Re-Submittal Response to NRC Request ML16083A219
for Additional Information Regarding Physical Security
Plan Review for License Renewal, February 26, 2016.....
Purdue Re-Submittal of Response to NRC Request for ML16102A123
Additional Information Re: Physical Security Plan
Review for License Renewal, March 31, 2016.............
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor ML16102A119
Operations For the Period January 1, 2015 to December
31, 2015, March 31, 2016...............................
Purdue University--Second Re-Submittal of Response to ML16134A143
NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding
Physical Security Plan Review for License Renewal, May
9, 2016................................................
Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering Notice ML16193A681
of ADAMS Document Correction, PUR-1, Docket 50-182,
ML16187A371, Technical Specifications, Proposed
Amendment 13 Enclosed, [Correction of the TSs,
originally submitted under ML16187A371], July 7, 2016..
Purdue University Responses to Request for Additional ML16207A426
Information re PUR-1 License Renewal and Power Uprate,
[Responses to RAIs ML15328A314], July 19, 2016.........
Purdue University--Response to Request for Additional ML16267A465
Information Regarding the Reactor License Renewal
Application, Responses to Letter dated July 25, 2016,
September 19, 2016.....................................
Purdue University--Explanation of Technical ML16277A165
Specification Changes and Emergency Operator Action,
September 29, 2016.....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 74828]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day October, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alexander Adams, Jr.,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch, Division of Policy and
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-25993 Filed 10-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
